The St. Johns herald., 1887-12-22

CEMBER SS, 1887.
 followed by seizure and sale or con
 fscation of property. No attribute
 of sovereignty is more pervading,
 and at no point does the power of the government affect more con-
 stantly and intimately all the rela- tions af life, than through the ex-
 actions made under it." Every gov
 ernment to which has been granted general legislative power, has this
 sovereign authority over the subject
 of taxation. In fact, it is the grand
 test of the right of the government
 to live; for it is grounded upon the
 great law of self-preservation.
 We take the position that rail
 road corporation, for the purpose
 of taxing its personal, tangible
 property-its rolling stock-may
 be regarded as having a construc-
 tive residence or domicile, in what
 ever county or taxing district, in
 which it may have an agent, or its
 rolling stock may be used in local
 as we'll as through traffic. For
 many purposes, and rightly so,
 wherever a railroad is in esse, there
 is its residence. This is true in ac- auiring ,jurisdietlon in civil suits, M c6EEpBoiratiass s ~ regaPded as TS ''' \ kl{H V9Tf3 nOle299 E4TtJ TT iss- -t+A@4 'fA siding wherever 1t has an agent
 and by serving summons upon the agent, the court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the body of the corporation. The corpus is where ever the railroad is; and wherever its rolling stock is continuously used and is protected, there it should pay a ratable, reasonable proportion of tax-should bear its part of the public burdens. And therefore on this point, our conclu- sion is that, as it is admitted that plaintiffs rolling stock was used continually in Apache county, in both local and through traffic 'at the time of the assessment, 1t had acquired a situs in said county and was subject to the tax assessed and levied thereon. See Welty on as- sessments, pp. 93, 94, 95, 96 and 1O4, 105 and 10S; Cooley on con stitutional limitations, 4th edition, 598; Coe vs. Erral, 116 U. S., g Story's Conflict of Laws, $50, St. Louis vs. The Ferry Co.,, Il Wallace, 423; Dubuque, etc., R. R. Co. vs the City of Dubuque, r Iowa, 120 Pullman Palace Gar Go. vs. Twom- ply, U. $. circuit court, Southern District of Iowa, found in Federal Reporter, volume 29, Mo- 14, page 658 Railroad Co. vs. Pennsylvania, 15 Wallace, 300; Tappan Collector vs. Merchants National Bank, 19 Wallace, 490; State Treasurer vs. Auditor General, 46 Mich. 224, and 5 Mich, page v.
 Something has been said about the right to tax a federal agency. It seems to us the law on this sub ject is too we'll settled to admit now of cavil. When the tax will inn pede the operations of the agency, or hinder it in accomplishing the purpose of its creation, it may not be imposed. This has been the set tied law of this country ever since the famous decision of Chief Jus tice Marshall in McCulloch vs. Ma ryland, 4th Wheaton, BIO. The only question to determine is whether the tax imposed will be an impedi- ment upon the operations of the federal agency, or not; if it will be, it may not be imposed; if it will not, it may be. The assessment in this case, however, does not lay any tax upon plaintiff as a federal the tax is upon plaintiffs franchise for carrying freight, pas sengers, etc., other than for the fed eral government. The exact lan- guage of the assessment in the tax